Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 13 August 2015

by C Sherratt DipURP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 2 October 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/C/15/3006175 Land and building known as Land next to Wigtwizzle Cottages, Wigtwizzle, Sheffield S36 4ZA

- The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
- The appeal is made by Mr Harvey Lidster against an enforcement notice issued by Peak District National Park Authority.
- The Council's reference is 3006175.
- The notice was issued on 20 January 2015.
- The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, operational development consisting of the erection of a building in the approximate position cross-hatched black on the plan attached to the notice.
- The requirements of the notice are to: (i) Demolish the Unauthorised Development and remove from the Land all materials used in its construction and all resulting rubbish and rubble; (ii) Reinstate those parts of the Land that have been built on to their former condition before the Unauthorised Development took place and where the land profile has been altered, re-profile the land to previous levels.
- The period for compliance with requirement (i) is 6 months and requirement (ii) 9 months.
- The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) and (f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed on ground (f), and the enforcement notice is varied by the deletion of requirement (ii) and the substitution of the following requirement: (ii) restore land hatched black on the plan attached to the notice (i.e. the approximate location of the building), to match the level of the immediately surrounding Land, using topsoil. Subject to this variation the enforcement notice is upheld.

Reasons

Ground (a)

2. The site is situated within the Peak District National Park. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

3. Photographic evidence shows the building that was previously on site. The natural stone building was in a poor state of repair. It is acknowledged that there were structural problems with the building. The appellant explains that the building was renovated in sections and that the materials used were those from the original building apart from a small number of stone roof slates. The appellant argues that it is not a new development as alleged as it replicates the building that has been on this site for many years.

4. Section 55 of the Act confirms the meaning of development. It includes the carrying out of building operations. For the purposes of this Act “building operations” includes (a) demolition of buildings; (b) rebuilding; (c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings. The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land—(a) the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which (i) affect only the interior of the building, or (ii) do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, and are not works for making good war damage or works begun after 5th December 1968 for the alteration of a building by providing additional space in it underground.

5. A replacement building, even if an exact replica of what may have existed immediately prior to its replacement is development. In this case, notwithstanding that the works may have been carried out in sections, the works carried out go well beyond what may be regarded as maintenance, improvement or alteration. It is therefore appropriate to consider the development as a new building. The building is located immediately to the north of Wigtwizzle Cottages. The walls are faced externally with natural stone and the roof is covered with natural stone slates.

6. Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the framework) clarifies that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks which are one of the designations which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. This is reflected in Policy L1 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan (LP). Wigtwizzle is not a settlement identified in Policy DS1 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan (LP) where some new build development may be acceptable. The appeal site is therefore in the countryside where, in accordance with Policy DS1, only certain forms of development would be acceptable in principle. These include agricultural development.

7. The framework emphasises the importance of good design and that decisions should aim to ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area. The appellant claims that the building has been constructed for agricultural purposes. The building is unrelated to any agricultural land that it is intended to serve. At the time of the site visit the building was not being put to any use. The internal walls were in place and so I was able to see how the building might function in design terms. The door opening in the front elevation is not at ground level thereby requiring steps. All the external and internal door openings are of a domestic scale and too small to easily accommodate even the smaller bales of straw or hay. The positioning of the front and rear doors would mean that the floor area could not be used efficiently for hay and feed storage. A hall and internal doors of a domestic scale would limit the type of agricultural machinery that could be stored in the room designated as a “tool and machine store” on the plans. The need for two entrances into this room is rather strange. Window openings have been inserted that do not reflect the position or number of openings of the former building. The resultant building takes on the appearance of a residential property rather than a functional agricultural building and I share the Council’s concerns that the building does not appear to have been designed with an agricultural use in mind; its external appearance and layout being more akin to a residential bungalow.

8. The existence of a building on the site previously of a similar scale and form and the use of the original materials is a material consideration that I have taken into account. I appreciate that the building had fallen into disrepair and so may have been unsightly. However, that would not justify a replacement building that is not fit for purpose and instead, has the appearance and layout of a residential development in a location where residential development would not be supported. It does not conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the surrounding area and so is contrary to relevant local and national policy.

Ground (f)

09. In brief, the appellant considers the requirements excessive as they do not reflect the fact that a building existed previously. However the original building no longer exists and so planning permission would be required for any development on the site. The breach of planning control is the erection of the new building. In order to remedy this breach the building must be demolished. The fact that the materials used in the construction of the building were reclaimed from the original building on the same site does not mean that they can now be left on the site; such storage would be development in itself.

10. As a building existed previously, the appellant states that there has been no alteration or re-profiling of the land. The requirement to “reinstate those parts of the Land that have been built on to their former condition before the Unauthorised Development took place and where the land profile has been altered, re-profile the land to previous levels” is not therefore sufficiently precise that the appellant would know what he is required to do. A requirement to simply restore the land hatched black on the plan attached to the notice (i.e. the approximate location of the building) to match the level of the surrounding land in the appeal site, using topsoil, would be precise.

11. For the reasons given above I conclude that the requirements are excessive and I am varying the enforcement notice accordingly, prior to upholding it. The appeal under ground (f) succeeds to that extent.

Claire Sherratt

Inspector